Just calling your BS out. Most of your posts allude to the idea that you believe that cheating is okay if it is done for the right reason(s).When you say that everyone has their price you are saying that it is okay at that point. At this amount of money it is okay for kjlued to cheat.

Just don't include everyone else in your personal decisions.

Yeah, I don't get how you get that translation from what I wrote.
Maybe English is a second language for you?

Answer me one question honestly.
Do you act 100% honest 100% of the time?

The difference is character doesn't really exist IMO, but if so it just shows they are less honorable for trying to mitigate their own losses by damaging someone else. Doesn't that sound familiar? Like character assassination that a certain fellow did when accused of cheating? They were all birds of a feather.

they were all cheaters - and you are talking about the code of ethics... among cheaters?

That's cool because I get disgusted on how judgmental people can be and how quickly they like to cast stones. Usually they speak out so vigorously because they see something in them they that don't like. Maybe it is that you don't like the fact that you yourself are not 100% honest all the time.

You say I am rationalizing dishonesty, but yet I have not done that.
Rationalizing it would be saying that it is ok to do it because everyone else does it.
As Peter so generously quoted for me, I said it was not ok and that I simply understand.
I also acknowledge the fact that everyone including myself has been dishonest.
This does not rationalize dishonesty by saying it is ok, I just choose not to cast stones at others because they make mistakes.

Media reports began swirling immediately after Lance Armstrong’s interview Monday with Oprah Winfrey that he admitted for the first time to using banned substances.

Those details came despite an agreement between Armstrong’s camp and Winfrey that they would not leak any details of the interview, she told CBS on Tuesday.

But it didn’t last for long.

"By the time I left Austin [Texas] and landed in Chicago, you all had already confirmed it," Winfrey told CBS, seemingly referring to the media. "So I'm sitting here now because it's already been confirmed.”

Armstrong will vaguely admit something? He won a civil suit against the London times, so I doubt you can expect a Mia culpa. The guy is a real A hole, he's also a great champion. That's where I hop off the train!

No, I hit thread search with your name and it revealed the number of times you posted. Took two seconds. I do that a lot when someone is dominating a conversation and people are coming down on them before I get involved in a heated discussion. If someone lets out a dumb comment, I typically won't argue.

If someone lets out 50, like in your case, I like to try to help that person understand why their argument might be interpreted as misguided by nearly everyone else in the conversation. If someone throws out personal attacks or insults, I'm sorry - you rage, you lose.

No, YOU don't understand. You're making an ass of yourself for all of eternity.

No, I hit thread search with your name and it revealed the number of times you posted. Took two seconds. I do that a lot when someone is dominating a conversation and people are coming down on them before I get involved in a heated discussion. If someone lets out a dumb comment, I typically won't argue.

If someone lets out 50, like in your case, I like to try to help that person understand why their argument might be interpreted as misguided by nearly everyone else in the conversation. If someone throws out personal attacks or insults, I'm sorry - you rage, you lose.

So the truth shall finally set him free? Lance Armstrong must think so, because it could also drain his bank account and leave him facing felony charges.

SNIP

If the man isn't making headlines and becoming a global celebrity by winning Tour de Frances or Iron Man Triathlons, which was to have been his next mountain to climb, his life is meaningless. Forget the beautiful wife. Forget his cute kids. (It seems he did both in his brief, doomed bid to conquer the triathlon world, admitting in Galveston last spring: "My family's scratching their heads. 'Why am I gone all day long now?' When I was trying to win the Tour de France, I was home a lot more.")

His future will become his new global reality, and his ego will get the better of him, it seems.

1
a : the doing of a thing : deed
b : something done voluntarily
2
: a state of real existence rather than possibility
3
: the formal product of a legislative body : statute; also : a decision or determination of a sovereign, a legislative council, or a court of justice
4
: the process of doing : action <caught in the act>
5
often capitalized : a formal record of something done or transacted
6
: one of the principal divisions of a theatrical work (as a play or opera)
7
a : one of successive parts or performances (as in a variety show or circus)
b : the performer or performers in such an act
c : a performance or presentation identified with a particular individual or group
d : the sum of a person's actions or effects that serve to create an impression or set an example <a hard act to follow>
8
: a display of affected behavior : pretense
— into the act or in on the act
: into an undertaking or situation as an active participant
See act defined for English-language learners »
See act defined for kids »

To further clear things up, I do not mean it in the 3rd meaning of the word given by MW which is "the formal product of a legislative body : statute; also : a decision or determination of a sovereign, a legislative council, or a court of justice"

I know the English language can be very confusing at times where the same word can have different meanings. Those are called homonyms. I will try to keep that in mind later when I addressing you. Sorry

BTW, what you are doing is the epitome of trolling.
I have to use an unconventionall source for this word since it is an unconventional use it.

The exchange affects an entire worlds economy to some degree.
The TDF affects the TDF.

Kind of like comparing a guy who shoplifts a few groceries to feed his family because he was laid off his job to a guy who mugs little old ladies because he is too lazy to get a job.
Sure, they are both stealing but I find it easier to understand and show sympathy too.

As far as LA goes, I could care less if you show him sympathy and I am sure he could care less too. I just understand why he did what he did.

Just to make sure I understand, in your analogy above, Armstrong would be analogous to the "bad" guy right? Because he didn't dope to feed his family or because he was forced to, he doped to enrich himself, just like all the other cyclists did. No matter how many special pleadings you use, he wasn't the good guy.

And to further your analogy, both the guys who stole will get punished when they get caught, regardless of their motives. The difference here is one guy admits it, takes his punishment and moves on, and the other guy acts like an arrogant ass for years, hides behind lies and lawyers, and then still wants to be the "good guy" when he finally gets painted into a corner and FORCED to admit what he did.

Was everyone doping, was it actually a "level playing field"? Probably, maybe, I don't know. Doesn't matter. The problem is, I find it very difficult to accept this new explanation/justification after so many years denial. Should he be crucified? No, but he should not get off scot-free either. He has punishment coming, and he deserves it.